Limiting the Use of Affirmative Action

While I am sympathetic to the goals of affirmative action — to help historically disadvantaged minorities to be selected for higher education and employment — it is, unfortunately, intrinsically a racially conscious process that seems antithetical to American values and principles.

There is little doubt that racism is still prevalent, and that it results in real disadvantages to members of minority groups in achieving economic and social parity with the majority. But to use an inherently racist process to abate racism’s effects is problematic. It goes against our ideals of equality and fairness.

The Supreme Court has basically said a state may use affirmative action programs if it chooses to do so, but is not required to use them. That is probably the best compromise that we can come to in a very difficult area of the law. I don’t often agree with the court’s decisions, but it seems to me that it got this one right.

It is possible that the goals of affirmative action programs in higher education and hiring might be furthered without racial animosity if we instead use economic status as a criterion. Because of socioeconomic realities, additional incentives to colleges and government employers to aid the poor to get an education and to get hired would necessarily scoop up a large number of minorities into the programs. We’d achieve the same goal without practicing racial discrimination in the name of abating its effects.

PETER L. RUDEN Savannah, Ga., April 23, 2014

To the Editor:

Affirmative action is no panacea, but it has been one of the most effective methods of promoting racial and ethnic equality in a society that still shows the signs of 400 years of prejudice. And we have seen that when affirmative programs are discontinued, the participation of African-American and Hispanic students declines sharply, to the point that their representation in the affected institutions is less than their portion of the general population.

Those striking results, which have occurred over and over, are strong proof both that affirmative action can work, and that in its absence prejudice rebounds. This week, most of the justices, however, chose to ignore the evidence.

JONATHAN J. MARGOLIS Brookline, Mass., April 23, 2014

To the Editor:

The Supreme Court made the right decision. We don’t help disadvantaged people by lowering standards for them. This is the subtle racism of low expectations.

If we want to help disadvantaged people, we should focus more on helping them at an early age to avoid the cultural and developmental pitfalls that are epidemic in African-American communities, for example. The job market dictates the standards we must all meet to succeed. These standards should be without consideration of race, creed, religion, age or sexual orientation.

Our focus as a society should be on how we can help people rise to the standards that exist, not to bend standards to accept people regardless of their qualifications.

I do not believe that racism is a major issue anymore. I am from the South and have been a professional in the corporate world for 20 years. No one I know would discriminate against any minority based on anything other than qualifications. In fact, I’ve seen the opposite. Anyone with a disadvantaged past in my experience is typically embraced more quickly than someone who isn’t.

Our society should focus on helping disadvantaged people to succeed, but it should not be based on race.

BARON YOUNG Dallas, April 23, 2014

To the Editor:

People need to be extremely careful what they ask for regarding banning affirmative action. Affirmative action today is very broad and includes not only women and minorities, but also veterans and people with disabilities.

Affirmative action as a term is a cultural negative — I refer to my university’s plan as a diversity and inclusion plan — which it is, and I ask others to do the same.

A lot of the backlash against affirmative action is based on fear and negative connotations attached to the term, not the idea. Our country is becoming more diverse, and the older traditional populations need to embrace that reality. We cannot afford as a nation to take steps backward that limit individuals from achieving access to education, employment and their civil rights.

We cannot and should not forget why we had to have affirmative action in the first place — outright discrimination and unequal treatment toward minorities and women. We are not yet a post-racial society!

JOHN BURNETT California, Pa., April 23, 2014

The writer is special assistant to the president for equal education and employment opportunity at California University of Pennsylvania.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A30 of the New York edition with the headline: Limiting the Use of Affirmative Action. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe